Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34696501›Full record

ArticleViruses2021

Feasibility and Effectiveness Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Antigenic Tests in Mass Screening of a Pediatric Population and Correlation with the Kinetics of Viral Loads.

Marcello Lanari, Giovanni Battista Biserni, Matteo Pavoni, Eva Caterina Borgatti, Marta Leone, Ilaria Corsini, Tiziana Lazzarotto

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Viruses, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marcello LanariPediatric Emergency Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Polyclinic of St.Orsola, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Giovanni Battista BiserniSpecialty School of Pediatrics-Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Matteo PavoniMicrobiology Unit, Department of Specialized, Experimental, and Diagnostic Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Polyclinic of St.Orsola, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Eva Caterina BorgattiMicrobiology Unit, Department of Specialized, Experimental, and Diagnostic Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Polyclinic of St.Orsola, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Marta LeoneMicrobiology Unit, Department of Specialized, Experimental, and Diagnostic Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Polyclinic of St.Orsola, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Ilaria CorsiniPediatric Emergency Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Polyclinic of St.Orsola, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.
Tiziana LazzarottoMicrobiology Unit, Department of Specialized, Experimental, and Diagnostic Medicine, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Polyclinic of St.Orsola, University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3093-363X
University of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gold standard for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). However, rapid antigen detection kits (Ag-RDTs), may offer advantages over NAAT in mass screening, generating results in minutes, both as laboratory-based test or point-of-care (POC) use for clinicians, at a lower cost. We assessed two different POC Ag-RDTs in mass screening versus NAAT for SARS-CoV-2 in a cohort of pediatric patients admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Unit of IRCCS-Polyclinic of Sant'Orsola, Bologna (from November 2020 to April 2021). All patients were screened with nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2-RNA and for antigen tests. Results were obtained from 1146 patients. The COVID-19 Ag FIA kit showed a baseline sensitivity of 53.8% (CI 35.4-71.4%), baseline specificity 99.7% (CI 98.4-100%) and overall accuracy of 80% (95% CI 0.68-0.91); the AFIAS COVID-19 Ag kit, baseline sensitivity of 86.4% (CI 75.0-93.9%), baseline specificity 98.3% (CI 97.1-99.1%) and overall accuracy of 95.3% (95% CI 0.92-0.99). In both tests, some samples showed very low viral load and negative Ag-RDT. This disagreement may reflect the positive inability of Ag-RDTs of detecting antigen in late phase of infection. Among all cases with positive molecular test and negative antigen test, none showed viral loads > 10

Indexed as

Antigens, ViralChildChild, PreschoolCOVID-19COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingCOVID-19 Serological TestingFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityViral LoadAntigens, ViralRNA, ViralchildrenCOVID-19mass screeningrapid antigenic testreal time RT-PCRSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34696501
PMCPMC8537025
OpenAlexW3207361068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.